(04-05-2016 01:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: The biggest issue I see with a straight up merger is its just too big (if the AAC lost 4, you'd still be talking about a 20 team conference). I think you'd be better off consolidating the best 6-8 out of the MW with whats left of the AAC. T
One thing that makes me pause about this MW-AAC 'merger' (really, code for "AAC raids the best MW teams for the AAC") talk is that it almost always seems to be initiated by fans of AAC schools, rarely by fans of Boise, SDSU, etc. That suggests right there that the AAC needs it more and would benefit more from these schemes.
Also, merging the best 6-8 of the MWC with "what's left" of the AAC is based on the idea that somehow the AAC has no "dead wood". It's an AAC-centric POV that is unlikely to be shared by the better MWC schools. Especially since, if we are talking about a post-raid AAC that has lost 4 teams, those remaining AAC schools will be even less valuable than what the AAC has now.
IMO, this is only possibly doable if the top 6 or so schools from both conferences break off and form their own better league, now, before any raids take place.
That would possibly, just possibly, result in more money, enough to justify forming a new conference. Probably not, but worth trying to run numbers on.
Even then, it probably isn't worth doing because (a) the money likely won't be much more, (b) the same instability - everyone in the league will be pining for and positioning for a P5 gig - will still remain, and © the geographic sprawl (yes, that does matter) will dampen fan interest on both sides. Maybe at SDSU playing a football game vs UConn or USF or Cincy is a nice novelty (and vice-versa), but only once every five years or so. If it's every year, it's a chore and nobody cares because of the lack of geo-cultural familiarity. And if you're going to have "wings" in which UConn and SDSU don't play each other but only meet in a title game, your just adding a layer of conference bureaucracy so why not remain in separate conferences to begin with?
You often point out that geographically tight G5 aren't worth anything. But, it also bears noting that the most stable and powerful P5 conferences - the SEC, B1G, and PAC - are very cohesive geographically, have strong regional/cultural identities. This suggests that geo-unity does add value, it's just that, in cases like the MAC, it can't overcome the inherent lack of value of those schools.
Moreso than any other major sport, college athletics is based on history and traditions, and geographic/cultural ties facilitate that. This remains true despite all the surface-level conference rearrangements and technological/media changes and innovations. At the end of the day, the SEC is powerful and stable because Ole Miss 'hates' LSU and vice-versa and they have for more than a century so there is enormous regional fan interest there, especially since as flagships, they are perceived to embody/personify their respective states so it is the closest thing people in either state get to one state clashing with the other.
Let's face it: In all likelihood, schemes of this kind are like bums on skid row rearranging the cardboard boxes and moldy mattresses they sleep on in the alleys to be a little more comfortable than what they had the night before. The only real salvation/improvement will be from getting a P5 golden ticket.